Weaknesses of the text Spelling and Grammar: o Could have been picked out by a good word processor or focused

proofreading e.g. o Simpler grammar errors like the there in succession, repetitions like using more thrice in the same sentence with no added substance and phrases like can tend . o Some more complex repetitions like really thought about and contemplated basically means the same thing. o Incident of wordy sentence of seven lines which requires careful scrutiny to understand and would confuse the average reader. o Sentence contradictory of findings and interpretation or as it may be, application. o Lastly, there is an informal phrase messes up Clarity of Main Body Text y Most of the text weakness lies here. y Heading kind of global but as you proceed it s all based on Australia therefore a bit of bias that whatever responses occur there are likely to occur worldwide. y No operational definitions as to what the sociological perspective means, includes and excludes. y Definitions provided for psychological perspectives like cognition and functionalism has the focus shifted? y The list of theorists only contains last names, how many Marx names will an interested reader have to go through before pinpointing the intended? y In explaining history of Sociological perspective, two founding fathers are not found on the prominent list but on the other theorists . y Furthermore, there is a spelling mistake of Auguste Comte (spelt with a p ), the man who actually coined sociology, who is also, by the way, on the other theorists . y There is mention however, of Freud on the prominent list who is a Psychologist and I begin to feel that there is now a conflict of perspectives, once again, has the focus shifted? y Still on that listen to (Kat reading the paragraph), soc perspective mentions cognitive and functional perspectives which are psychological methods

y Moving on, abbreviations like PAEO pop up in the text and are not explained. y Aim was to explain according to soc perspective but text seems to lose objectivity as twice, the language suggests a line of defense for a theorist and I quote these people sincerely considered women the weaker form of humanity focus on SINCERELY. y There are a few claims not supported by reference for example that the top most reason for resignation is because of better opportunities elsewhere. Whilst this might be true, where is the evidence? One wonders whether to trust that the claim is accurate or maybe of the author s invention. Doubt has been cast on the argument. y Lastly, even though as mentioned that the work is sectionalized by sub headings in terms of paragraphing, Ideas are not contained and some are repeated three or four paragraphs later Reference  Reference does not begin on a new page as it should.  Citation inconsistencies, some are complete, some incomplete and some confusing! Have objectives been met? o The general objective of explaining event in the sociological perspective has been achieved but we feel that more work has been done stating theories and giving opinion than really going deep on how social lives are affected by the reforms.

CONCLUSION  The text basically explains some of the reforms that took place in Australia and the impact of the Workplace Relations Act of 1996.  The objective of this text was met but not as expected to be. That is to say it did not fully explain how social lives were affected by the reforms.  The style of writing and language can be understood by an average reader.  The author supports his/her research using facts and in text citations from sociology theorists.  This text is well organized, sectionalized, has in- text citations and references. Even though the text is well organized, in text citations were inconsistent at some point and references should have started on a new page and not just below the conclusion as was done.  The text has a good conclusion that incorporates all that the author discussed.  We as a group recommend proof reading be done and that there be thorough research done on the main idea being the sociological perspective.  We as a group think that this text cannot be termed as an academic writing because it lacks the analytical skill that an academic writing contains and also it strayed from objectivity a number of times.